Category: Litigation

Employment / Litigation / M&A

Termination for Cause in the United States: It’s Whatever You Want it to Be

The default rule in most U.S. states is at-will employment. This means that either the employee or the employer may terminate the employment relationship at any time, without notice, for any reason—other than a discriminatory or retaliatory reason. A reason is discriminatory if it is based upon an individual’s status as a member of a protected class, such as race, gender, national origin, or religion. A reason is retaliatory if it relates to an individual’s protected activity, such as whistleblowing or raising concerns regarding the terms and conditions of employment. Parties can opt out of the default at-will rule by entering into an employment agreement that provides the employee with severance unless the...

Employment / Litigation / M&A

Exempt or Non-Exempt Employee Under U.S. Law? Even U.S. Employers Frequently Get it Wrong

In the United States, employers are required to pay employees overtime (1.5 times the employee’s hourly rate) for hours worked over 40 per week. In some states, such as California, employers are required to pay overtime if employees work more than 8 hours in a day. Like Canada, U.S. employees may be exempt from overtime requirements if they meet certain criteria. However, such exemptions under U.S. law are frequently more complicated than their Canadian counterparts, and even sophisticated U.S. employers frequently get them wrong. In 2016, U.S. employers spent nearly $700 million on class-action settlements of wage and hour claims. This does not include amounts U.S. employers spent paying judgments and attorneys’ fees....

Employment / Litigation

Damages: Making Anti-Harassment Policies Work in the United States

Harassment has been in the news a lot lately in the United States, with several high-profile terminations at well-known companies. Companies are losing millions of dollars, not just in settlements and verdicts, but in lost customers and bad publicity. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, is the administrative agency responsible for enforcing laws prohibiting workplace harassment in the United States. The EEOC has issued new guidance suggesting that conventional anti-harassment training isn’t enough. So what is an employer to do? Maintaining an effective harassment reporting procedure is simple, but not always easy. Often, it means a willingness by the company to put its money where its mouth is. This involves taking the...

Litigation

Exporting Products Across the Border – Avoiding Product Liability and Other Litigation Risks in the United States

Canadian companies exporting products across the border into U.S. markets face significant risks of litigation or regulatory action arising from products sold and distributed in the United States. In a recent article, our colleague Kent Schmidt outlines ideas for managing these risks and creating a litigation risk profile around the four key areas of vulnerability: product liability claims, breach of warranty claims, false advertising and consumer protection claims, and claims related to collection, use, or compromise of consumer data and personal information. The full text of Kent’s article is available at www.dorsey.com/newsresources/publications/articles/2017/05/avoiding-unnecessary-us-litigation. For a more thorough discussion on how Canadian companies can avoid product-related claims in the United States, we invite you to...

Intellectual Property / Litigation

Protect Your Intellectual Property in Cross-Border Distributor Relationships

Canadian manufacturers who sell products through U.S. distributors should ensure that they take appropriate action to establish their U.S. intellectual property rights, and to deal clearly with those rights in their cross-border distribution agreements. In a recent post on Dorsey’s IP blog, The TMCA, Sandra Edelman discusses the difficulties encountered by Covertech Fabricating, a Canadian manufacturer of protective packaging and reflective insulation, in establishing that it was the rightful owner of the trademarks in its branded products, not its U.S. distributor. Read her analysis of the recent court decision here: thetmca.com/who-owns-that-trademark-the-manufacturer-or-the-exclusive-distributor/